Dashas: Yogini Pratyantardasha

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context — cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the POST endpoint — but says nothing about what is required to run (birth data plus target date) or how results are scoped. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line definition plus bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost) is compact and front-loaded with the substance first. Nothing is padded, though the leading phrase largely restates the title and leaves the term 'Pratyantardasha' unexplained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description never mentions that the call requires full natal birth data (date, time, coordinates) plus an optional target date to place the cascade in time. For a computational tool with a rich nested body schema, that is a meaningful omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains ayanamsa, timezone, timezoneOffset, houseSystem, and the birth-data contract in detail, so parameters are well documented structurally. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific system and level (Yogini Pratyantardasha) and states its structure as a 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 8 PDs), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling yogini_antar (2-level) and yogini_prana (4-level) tools. It does not use an explicit verb like 'compute' or 'return', so it reads partly as a label, but the technical scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool over yogini_maha, yogini_antar, or yogini_prana, and no prerequisites are given. The only guidance is indirect, from the '3-level cascade' phrasing, leaving the agent to infer the level-selection logic from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.